Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19960 = 2025(2) L.A.R. 107 = 2025 :PHHC: 31676
Decided on: 06.03.2025
Present:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Panag, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.1.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Eviction of tenant – Execution of order/ decree -- ‘Landlord’ has been defined as a person, who is entitled to receive the rent -- It is not synonymous with the word ‘Owner’ -- If the tenants/ appellants have any dispute with landlord, then they have to establish their rights in the separate suit -- At this stage, only the Executing Court is required to deliver possession in favour of the decree holder.
(Para 3)
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. In a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short ‘1949 Act’), Sh. Kamal Kishore Sehgal’s petition seeking ejection of the tenant Sh. Vijay Bhandari has been allowed on 20.10.2008. The execution petition to implement the aforesaid eviction order is pending. The appellant filed objections on the ground that he is successor in interest of Sh. Tek Chand, who was owner of the property. Sh. Kamal Kishore Sehgal filed a reply submitting that Sh. Hari Chand was owner of the property, who bequeathed by virtue of a Will of the year 1996 in favour of Sh. Mohinder Pal. Subsequently, Sh. Mohinder Pal through attorney executed the sale deed in favour of Sh. Kamal Kishore Sehgal on 21.06.2002. Thus, both the Courts have found no substance in the objections filed by the appellants.
2. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that objections filed by the appellants have wrongly been dismissed because they are owners of the property. As per the provisions of ‘1949 Act’, the word ‘Landlord’ has been defined as a person, who is entitled to receive the rent. It is not synonymous with the word ‘Owner’. Moreover, if the appellants have any dispute with Sh. Kamal Kishore Sehgal then they have to establish their rights in the separate suit. At this stage, only the Executing Court is required to deliver possession in favour of the decree holder.
4. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
5. Dismissed accordingly.
6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Appeal dismissed.
********